Opinion
May 20, 1993
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
After having an argument with one of the partners in the law firm where he worked as a legal secretary, claimant informed the other partner that he could not work there anymore and that he would just finish out the week. That partner testified that he considered claimant's remarks to be a resignation and he therefore gave claimant his last check at the end of the week. Although claimant admitted that he had an argument with one of the partners, he denied that he quit or gave a final date of employment. Claimant alleges that he was discharged because the law firm had lost a substantial amount of its business and his services were no longer needed. The conflicting testimony given by claimant and his employer presented a question of credibility which was within the exclusive province of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve and its determination, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed (see, Matter of Baker [Hartnett], 147 A.D.2d 790, appeal dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 714; Matter of Nunes [Roberts], 98 A.D.2d 934). Here, the Board credited the employer's testimony. Although evidence to the contrary was presented by claimant, the Board could rationally conclude that claimant's employment ended due to his failure to get along with his employer, something that does not constitute good cause for leaving one's job (see, Matter of Grossman [Levine], 51 A.D.2d 853). We also find that claimant was not denied his right to due process by the Administrative Law Judge's ruling denying his request to subpoena various witnesses and documents (see, Matter of Phillips [Hartnett], 161 A.D.2d 1067, 1068). Under the circumstances, substantial evidence exists to support the Board's decision that claimant voluntarily left his job without good cause and it must therefore be upheld (see, Matter of Steed [Roberts], 115 A.D.2d 166, 167; Matter of Sillan [French Tel. Cable Co. — Levine], 53 A.D.2d 719).
Yesawich Jr., J.P., Levine, Mercure, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.